Well, I’m back to blogging after a long hiatus. Let’s get back to the fun.

Recently, an appeals court overturned the gay marriage ban in California. Proposition 8 had been voted into law with 52% of the vote in the state. A lower court judge had ruled it unconstitutional, but proponents of Prop 8 appealed (one reason was the lower court judge was gay). The appeals court upheld that ruling 2-1, saying there was no compelling reason for the law. Proponents have vowed to appeal again, and take it to the SCOTUS if they have to.

As I mentioned the other day on my Facebook page, I don’t think that people understand there is civil marriage and there is church marriage. Proponents of gay marriage bans tend to feel they must “protect the sanctity of marriage” by not letting gays get married. Prop 8 proponents said that the government “shouldn’t be allowed to redefine” marriage. If they want to maintain the status quo regarding marriage, so be it. Do it at the CHURCH level. But leave civil marriage alone. Not everyone in religious. And I have yet to hear exactly what threat allowing a subset of a group of people who represent about 3% of the population get married, civil unionized, or whatever, would have on heterosexual people getting married. If gay marriage is such a threat, why is it that all the gay marriages that have occurred in states where it’s legal haven’t caused the world to come to an end? More importantly, how can people who want to be called “conservative” and advocate for individual rights, then want the government to enforce a law simply in order to keep from being offended? It doesn’t make sense.

Fairness. A word that is getting used way too much. More often it’s used lately in reference to the rich and how much they pay in taxes. Mind you, there has been no definition given, but it creates a good soundbite. Funny enough, a write wrote what I consider to be a humorous article in the Wall Street Journal, A Fairness Quiz for the President. Of course there is no chance there would be answers forthcoming from President Obama concerning the article. But asking questions such as “is it fair that the richest 1% of Americans pay nearly 40% of all federal income taxes, and the richest 10% pay two-thirds of the tax” and “Is it fair that wind, solar and ethanol producers get billions of dollars of subsidies each year and pay virtually no taxes, while the oil and gas industry—which provides at least 10 times as much energy—pays tens of billions of dollars of taxes while the president complains that it is “subsidized” can only leave us wondering what kind of answers the President would give if pressed. And of course, the comments section below the article is quite entertaining.

And finally, there is the attempt in Wisconsin to recall Gov. Scott Walker and other Republicans in office. The main complain is that he took away public workers’ right to collective bargain. Further, he dared do this having not said before he was elected that this was something he would do. I didn’t realize a candidate has to spell out every single thing they hope to accomplish beforehand. also, there is a corruption probe going on that seems to have nabbed someone close to him. Its plain there is an effort afoot to get rid of him. My problem is, how do you justify recalling someone whose ideas are actually working? There are school systems where collective bargaining didn’t take place that saved money and made no layoffs. In other areas where the unions were able to force collective bargaining before the new law took effect, school districts are having to fire teachers to avoid budget gaps. It will be interesting to see how the recall election plays out.